OF BUSES, HORSES, MICE, AND CIVIL RIGHTS: PARENTS OF BLIND CHILDREN PUT FEDERATION
PHILOSOPHY TO THE TEST

[PICTURE]John and Susan Ford with children Brenda and Brent.
[PICTURE] David and Carol Kier with children Jane and Cyrus. [PICTURE] Jeff Balek is shown here with his mother, Linda, and sister, Jenny. [PICTURE] Pat Munson, President of the National Association of
Blind Educators, confers with National Federation of the
Blind President, Marc Maurer, at a recent NFB National
Convention. [PICTURE] Perhaps Maria will grow up and become a horse-trainer like this young blind woman; perhaps she won't. Whether she does or does not, however, is not important. What is
important is that she now knows that it is a possibility.
Because her parents acted on her behalf as they did,
one more door of opportunity has been opened to her.

What would you do if...

--Your blind child was told he couldn't go on a
school field trip because he might fall down
some steps?

--You came across a cartoon in a magazine
which depicted the blind in a degrading,
stereotypical manner?

--Your blind son or daughter was told he or she
couldn't get on a horse at camp, or sit with his
or her friends at the back of the bus because it
wouldn't be "safe"?

The following letters (and one play) are from
parents of blind children who faced these very
situations. As you read about their experiences I
think you will agree that each reacted with insight,
courage, and courteous but firm persistence.
It is also clear that they have more in common
than the experience of being a parent of a
blind child --they share a common philosophy
about blindness and a common commitment to
changing public attitudes about blindness.

It is no coincidence that each of these parents
seems to have the same philosophy about blindness
or that each just happened to send copies of
letters to the National Federation of the Blind.
Each of these parents has, to some degree, been
influenced by the literature and activities of the
National Federation of the Blind. Whether that
involvement has been intense or peripheral, it
has forever changed what they believe about
blindness and, therefore, what actions they are
willing to take when confronted with discrimination
and misconceptions about blindness.

If these parents were asked what they believe
about blindness, they might say something like
this:

"...if blindness is a limitation (and, indeed, it is),
it is so in quite the same way as innumerable
other characteristics which human flesh is heir to.
I believe that blindness has no more importance
than any of a hundred other characteristics and
that the average blind person is able to perform
the average job in the average career or calling, provided (and it is a large proviso) he is given
training and opportunity."

Dr. Kenneth Jernigan, former president of the
National Federation of the Blind, wrote these
words in 1974. They have been quoted (and
sometimes misquoted) and reformulated
thousands of time; not only within NFB literature
but in the public media and professional journals
as well. These words express the very fundamentals
of the National Federation of the Blind
philosophy of blindness, and they are as relevant
today as when they were first written over sixteen
years ago. It is this philosophy which more and
more parents -- such as the Fords, the Baleks, the
Kiers, and the Sizes --are adopting and putting
into practice with their own children.

It is also noteworthy that the Federation has
influenced more than the philosophy of these
parents. Each of them approached their problem
in true Federation tradition and style. For example,
all were courteous but firm. Unfortunately
people often misinterpret firmness as rudeness.
Never have we advocated that one should
be rude. Quite the opposite, we respect and admire
those among us who, despite adversity, have
been models of courtesy and respect for others.
However, we also tell the truth, expect the truth
from others, and are never namby-pamby about
standing up for what we believe.

All were flexible. Wherever basic rights and
responsibilities are concerned, there can be no
compromise. However, progress never comes
quickly and it always comes in stages. We in the
Federation are aware of this and are not so naive
or stiff-necked that we do not recognize the need
to be flexible in the solutions we seek to
problems.

All were persistent. We sometimes say to each
other in the Federation that we may sometimes
lose a battle, but we never lose the war because
the war is never over until we win.

It has been about a decade--The first issue of Future Reflections was published in 1981, The Resource Guide for Parents and Educators of
Blind Children was published in 1979, and the
Parents of Blind Children Division of was established
in 1983 -- since the National Federation of
the Blind initiated a national effort to reach out
(through parents) to the blind of the next generation.
As a result more and more parents are
joining our ranks in the war to win security,
equality, and opportunity for all blind persons.
And -- like John and Susan Ford, Linda and Tom
Balek, Tim and Pat Size, and Carol and David
Kier--we intend to keep on fighting with persistence
and firmness of principle until we have won!

Editor's Note: The following letter was originally
published in the May, 1990 Braille Monitor as
part of an article called "Teaching Teachers about
Civil Rights," by Barbara Pierce. The remarks
which follow the letter are also reprinted from that
article.

Today I received a telephone call from Terri
Bascom. She explained to me that she was sending
permission slips home with the eighth graders
in preparation for a field trip on Friday. She
further explained that the field trip would be to
Keil Auditorium, where the youngsters would
see a film and read some materials prepared by
a coordinating committee regarding Martin
Luther King, Jr., and his contribution to the civil
rights of blacks. Ms. Bascom then explained that
she was not sending a permission slip home with
Brent. She said she and Ms. Stevens were taking
about seventy-five young people and they didn't
want the responsibility of taking Brent. She said
there were lots of stairs and she didn't want the
responsibility. I said that she would know if he
had fallen and that so would 1.1 then said that I
knew she understood about discrimination and
that if she could not demonstrate that Brent was
unsafe, we would permit him to go. I pointed out
that Brent takes mobility twice weekly and that
he travels throughout Valley School, but she
reiterated that she did not want the responsibility.

Now
Mr. Englehart, here are two of your
teachers --both of whom are black themselves
and should, therefore, understand about civil
rights and about how demeaning discrimination
can be. They propose to take a group of young
people and teach them about Martin Luther
King, Jr. How on earth can one teach about
Martin Luther King without teaching about discrimination?
Yet these same teachers propose to
deprive a blind child (who participates daily in a
public school classroom) of his right to go on this
very field trip. How ludicrous!

I realize that these teachers are trying to
protect Brent from possible injury. However, discrimination
is still discrimination, whether it is
founded on hate (black civil rights) or upon love
(blind civil rights).

Brent has indicated that he would like to go
on this field trip, so I am sending a note giving
him our permission to do so. You will note that
we are giving this letter some publicity. If Brent
is not permitted to go on this trip and other
students do go, then on January 16 we will be
contacting the Regional Office of Human Rights
Enforcement for the Department of Education
in Kansas City to file a 504 complaint against
Maplewood-Richmond Heights School district
and these teachers in particular. This situation is
intolerable to us as blind people; and frankly, it
would have been seen as intolerable by Martin
Luther King, Jr., as well.

That is what the Fords had to say, and it wasn't
long before there were results. Mr. Englehart,
the school principal, was predictably displeased
to find that copies of the correspondence had
been sent to so many of the people to whom he
reported. He assured the Fords that if they had
come to him with the problem earlier, he could
have resolved it amicably. The Fords pointed out
that they had not known about the teachers'
decision until the last moment and that they had
done the only thing they could see to do to protect
their son's right to attend the school event.

The Superintendent of Schools, who is himself
African American, received his copy of the letter
on the Thursday before the Friday field trip. He
immediately called the Fords to inquire whether
or not the problem had been resolved. It had not,
and the Fords said so. He assured them that it
would be before the day was over.

The solution agreed upon by the administrators
was, as most such resolutions are, not all the
Fords would have liked. The school principal
asked that another member of the teaching staff
volunteer to accompany Brent on the field trip.
The resource teacher did so, and she and Brent
both joined the Maplewood students at Keil
Auditorium. Most of the eighth grade sat close to
the stage, but Brent, who the teachers had feared
would fall on the stairs, chose to sit at the top of
the auditorium. The resource teacher followed
along behind, and, of course, there were no
misadventures as he climbed the innumerable
steps.

Did the classroom teachers learn anything about
civil rights from this experience? It is hard to say.
They did learn that, like our African American
brothers and sisters a generation ago, blind
people today will no longer settle for being
passed over and dismissed as incompetent and of
no account. They probably enjoyed the learning
of this fact about as little as white Americans did
and still do. But perhaps they will learn to look at
Brent as the real human being he is, not as the
bundle of myths and misconceptions they have
projected onto him. If so, they will have grown,
and their future students will all benefit.

But the story does not stop here. At fourteen,
Brent Ford has until now never experienced discrimination
in a form that he could clearly recognize.
When his teacher denied him the right to
join the field trip, he realized for the first time
that all the things for which his parents and their
Federation friends have been fighting are of
desperate importance to him and his generation,
too.

The National Federation of the Blind of Missouri
had scheduled a legislative day in Jefferson City
shortly after Brent's school adventure. He expressed
interest in attending the event with his
parents, so they took him out of school for the
day.

One of the bills about which the Federationists
were to be talking with legislators was the Missouri
Braille Bill, which had been incorporated
in a Children At Risk bill, which was before a
Senate committee on the day of the trip to the
capital.

Brent, who has never been very excited about
using his slate and stylus, was encouraged to write
some remarks during the ride to Jefferson City.
He did so, using the slate, and when the group
arrived, he began talking with legislators about
the issue of the availability of Braille to blind
school students. They were impressed --so impressed
that Brent was asked to address the committee
which was hearing testimony that day. He
was the only Federationist allowed to speak, but
he did his work well. The bill passed the Senate
and is on its way to the House with a good chance
of passage.

This story is a salutary reminder to us all that we
never know what effect our work will have on
those around us. Sometimes, when we consider
the vastness of the sea of ignorance about blindness
that surrounds us, we feel as if we are all
alone bailing out that ocean with a teaspoon. But
there are well over fifty thousand of us, attacking
the problem at every point, and we are making
progress.

Note: The bill containing the
provision about the availability of
Braille to blind students was passed by
the legislators, and signed into law by
the governor of the state.

Editor's Note: The following correspondence
between the Kiers and the editor of Ours magazine
as well as the introductory commentary are part of
a lengthier article by Barbara Pierce titled: "Little
Black Sambo, Simple Simon, and the Three Blind
Mice: Members of a Vanishing Breed" which appeared
in the June, 1990, Braille Monitor.

The editor wrote back a thoughtful letter pointing
out that the canes were intended to indicate
to people that these were the mice of song and
legend, and they were hanging on to each other
to indicate the problems that everyone gets into
when the blind lead the blind -- in this case adoption
agencies and parents.

The editor is clearly a thoughtful and compassionate
person, who had no intention of hurting
anyone, except perhaps the agencies who
mishandle and obfuscate adoption procedures.

She points out that the word "blind" has a wide
range of colorful and graphic uses. It would be a
shame to deny these to speakers and writers just
because some of them offend the sensibilities of
a relative few. In fact, she might have pointed out
that some images are positive. Since ancient
times, Justice has been portrayed as blind, not
because the image evokes a picture of decisions
being made in the absence of information, but
because we believe that justice should be absolutely
impartial, unswayed by superficial visual
detail. The goddess Fortune and her modern,
rather washed-out counterpart, Lady Luck, also
are blindfolded, in order, one supposes, to illustrate
impartiality. There are, of course,
neutral expressions in the language which use the
word "blind" and the implied analogy to not
seeing or there being nothing to see. "Flying
blind" and "blind alley" come to mind. Such
expressions strike me as accurate and lively.
There is nothing demeaning about their employment
of the word "blind." To be blind is in fact
not to see, and when everyday life confronts one
with situations in which vision cannot be used, it
is appropriate to use the word "blind" to describe
them.

This leaves those expressions which may be pungent
and pithy, but which are also destructive,
demeaning, and frequently untrue. The Biblical
admonition that when the blind lead the blind,
they both fall into the ditch is an obvious example.
The truth of this adage unfortunately still
seems obvious to most sighted people, and at the
time of its writing, it may well have been an
accurate assessment of the travel skills of many
blind people. But it is certainly no longer true, and the damage its repetition does to public attitudes
and the self-confidence of many uninformed
blind people would be hard to overstate.

It is not too much to ask that thoughtful people
consider the impact of their use of our language.
Heaven knows they are quick enough to avoid
perfectly appropriate terms like "look" and "see"
when addressing a blind person, for fear of insulting
him or her. If such misplaced sensitivity could
be applied instead to steering clear of detrimental
and degrading uses of the word "blind," we
would all be healthier and a good bit nearer to an
accurate understanding of the abilities of blind
people.

Here is the exchange of letters between David
and Carol Keir and the editor of OURS Magazine:

Overall, we have found your magazine to be
well balanced in presenting articles on the adoption
process and issues of the adoption triangle
(adoptive parents, adoptees, and birth parents)
as well as issues of helping to build self-esteem
and pride in the children.
Being adoptive parents of two children (one
domestic, one international) who are both
transracial and have special needs, we have tried
to instill in our children positive feelings about
themselves. We are in the process of adopting
our third child, who will also be transracial and
have special needs.
With interest and agreement we read in the
January/February, 1990, issue of OURS President
Elliott's article on transracial adoption and
the letters section containing "Disney Responds
to Parents." Turning to pages 10-11, we read the
article, "Murphy's Law Lives," enjoying the anecdotes.
However, we were perplexed and
chagrined by the caricature of the three blind
mice by Rany Buckingham on both that page and
the following one, as well as in the Table of
Contents. Our just-turned-seven-year-old son's
special need is blindness. Since his adoption at
age two, we have searched to find positive statements,
education, and role models for ourselves
and him. We have found a group, the National
Federation of the Blind, which seeks to help
blind individuals feel good about themselves and
their capabilities. They also battle to break down
the public's stereotyped image of the blind like
that expressed in the children's song, "Three
Blind Mice."

The white cane, pictured in the cartoon so that
people would know that these mice were blind,
represents and permits freedom of movement for
a blind individual. With proper mobility training,
a blind person does very well with a white cane
without having to grab onto the shoulder of
either a sighted or another blind person. The
white cane symbolizes independence; it is not a
sign of helplessness.
Usually we overlook ignorant blunders, as we
did when we saw the movie "Cheetah" with our
children (yes, blind children go to the movies).
But when a group like yours seems to be stressing
sensitivity towards those that are different, and
also lists a "Some Kids Wait" column which includes
blind children needing permanent homes,
we strongly feel the need to call this example of
insensitivity to your attention.
As you are aware, it is difficult at times not to
succumb to the biases, prejudices, and
stereotypes of society. Seeing that Adoptive
Families of America strives to educate its readers
and correct their misconceptions about adoption
issues, we felt we needed to call to your attention
this stereotype of the blind as helpless and incompetent.
It is not, we believe, really what you
want to convey to the public, prospective parents,
and blind children.
May we share with your organization an article
from the December, 1989, issue of the National
Federation of the Blind's magazine, the Braille Monitor. We hope it will help educate and
sensitize you to these issues in the future. It is
called, "Educate the Educated" by Bill Isaacs, a
special needs adoptive parent of four transracial
children.

Sincerely yours,
Mr. and Mrs. Keir

cc: Mrs. B. Cheadle

February 14,1990
Mr. and Mrs. Keir:

Thank you for your letter...to which I have
given much thought and which I would like to
respond to personally, although we also will include
it in a future "Letters to the Editor" department
of OURS magazine.
I apologize for any offense that our illustration
may have caused you. It certainly was not our intention, and we do apologize if you were offended.
I
am a little puzzled at the charge. Your
primary concern seems to be that we mixed
metaphors by portraying the mice with canes but
also holding each other's shoulders. We were
going for recognition of both "3 Blind Mice" and
"the blind leading the blind," both well-known
fables in the American vernacular. The canes
were used to identify them as blind, and the
shoulder grasping was an image of the agenciesleading-the
parents, issues that the stories dealt
with. We believed both were necessary symbols
for this illustration.
I certainly am aware that blind people don't
hold each others' shoulders to move about, nor
do I imagine anybody else believes this, either.
For that matter, there is nothing strictly accurate
about an earlier illustration in our magazine, in
which prospective adoptive parents are literally
swimming in a huge pile of papers surrounding
an agency worker's desk, and I would hope
people realize that agencies don't require their
clients to swim in paper to reach their desks. Both
illustrations are examples of exaggeration and
irony to make a point. I think this is a fine point
in a debate that is more aesthetic than civic.

But to the underlying, and more pervasive,
point of your letter: using the word "blind" in a
negative connotation, as in "blind leading the
blind" or as a synonym for "clumsy" or "careless."
This is the aspect of the issue that I have thought
about quite alot, and will continue to ponder. Webster's Unabridged Dictionary defines blind
(adv.) as: 1) blindly; specifically, so as to be blind,
insensible, etc. 2) recklessly. 3) in aeronautics, by
the use of instruments alone; as, to fly blind. 4)
sight unseen, as, to buy a thing blind. Under
"blindness," Webster's says "the state of being
without sight; also, a lack of discernment." Quite
a wide variety of definitions, there, and not all
favorable.
I hesitate to endorse removing references to
blindness from all literature or manners of
speech --the Biblical passage you quoted in the
article enclosed with your letter, lines from
Shakespeare, and many simple colloquialisms
are lovely uses of the English language and I am
loathe to say they should be stricken from the
record.
Just strike the negative ones from the record, but keep the positive ones, you say? That strikes
me as a fairly major disparity without much justification
to support it.
Still, your letter has made me think hard about
something I never considered before, and I certainly have looked at Rany's illustration in a different
way since reading it....
I am still not entirely in agreement with you
on some of your points, but I do recognize the
potential for offense where I had not before seen
any. And I agree with you that a magazine such
as OURS must maintain a very careful scrutiny
over any possible innuendoes that may be inferred
from its pages.
Thank you for sending along your letter and
the article. I appreciate being informed about
this particular issue. And again, my apologies for
any offense taken from Rany's illustration.

Sincerely,
Anne Welsbacher
Editor, OURS Magazine

cc: Rany Buckingham
Madison, Wisconsin

Editor's Note: There are human emotions and
experiences which seem indescribable. But, since
human beings are what we are, we try anyway.
That's probably why we invented poetry and music.

This play by Tim Size, father of a nine-year-old
girl who happens to be blind, describes one of those
experiences that doesn't have the same impact
when told in an ordinary way. You'll enjoy the
touches of humor, identify with his frustration, and
cheer (or sigh, or both) with him at the conclusion
for we have all been there -- or will be. Tim Size
knows firsthand that changing public attitudes
about blindness is often frustrating and
monotonous. But he also understands the alternative
and is not willing to let his daughter suffer the
consequences of ignorance, apathy, and inaction.

May 30, 1990
Barbara Cheadle, Editor
Future Reflections

Dear Ms. Cheadle

Last week, we found out by chance that one
of our daughters, Maria (a bright and athletic
nine-year-old) would not be able to get on a horse
at a Girl Scout campout next weekend because
she was legally blind. As part of my processing of
this experience I wrote down what we remembered
in the form of a play. (I had been intrigued
by how neatly the events had unfolded). This is a
slice of daily life that will be familiar to some of
you. It deals more with attitudes than law; and
with prejudice, bad habits or ignorance rather
than intent to do harm. While it may sound to
some like a made-up story, it is close to verbatim.
Basically, it is what was said with some intervening
gobs of daily life omitted for brevity's sake.
I'm offering this as a small primer of one form
of advocacy that many of us are occasionally
called on to do and will need to continue to do
until community attitudes really change.

Sincerely,
Tim Size

Civil Horseplay by Tim Size

Subtitle: "All professions are
conspiracies against the laity."
George Bernard Shaw

Camp Owner (cold anger below surface at
having authority questioned): "It's not
safe."
Mom: "What can we do to make it safe? We
will come and help-- ride with her, hold
the horses' reins...."
CampOwner: "Our insurance won't let us."
Mom: "Who is your insurer, we will talk
with them. Doesn't seem right that they
should be allowed to force you to discriminate
in this way."
CampOwner: "That's not you business."
Mom: "Well what can we do?"
CampOwner: "Nothing. This is our 'professional judgment. "

Mom: "Could you find out what the Geese Scout's policy is about this?"

Scene 5 (A follow-up call later that day.)

Volunteer Geese Scout Gaggle Leader: "The Geese Scout's Office checked this out; they can't force them to do what they don't want to do--it's their business. Why are you doing this? The Geese Girls use this facility a lot. You don't want to spoil it for them, do you?"

ACT II

Scene 1 (Next day, phone call to Camp Horsebeat Hill.)

Dad: "Hello, my wife called yesterday and I wanted to confirm what she says you said."
Camp Owner (again, cold anger below surface at having authority questioned): "Its not safe"
Dad: "What can we do to make it safe? We will come and help-- ride with her, hold the horses reins'...."
CampOwner: "Our insurance won't let us."
Dad: "Who is your insurer, we will talk with them. Doesn't seem right that they should be allowed to force you to discriminate in this way."CampOwner: "That's not your business."
Dad: "Well, what can we do?"
Camp Owner: "Nothing; this is our professional judgment."
Dad: "But you will let kids several years younger ride."
CampOwner: "Yes, but they can see to duck branches if a deer jumps out and scares the horse and it runs away."
Dad: "Our daughter is old enough to be taught to not panic and to hold on. I'm not sure that is true of younger kids."
CampOwner:"I can't expect my staff to have time to do that teaching."
Dad: "I'd still be more worried with a young seven-year-old on a horse than our nine-year-old."
CampOwner: I'm the expert on horses."
Dad: "I'm the expert on being a parent of a blind kid."
Camp Owner: "I'm pretty busy; I must go now."
Dad: "Well, it seems there are a lot of groups that won't be able to use your facility when they find out about this discrimination against kids with disabilities."
Camp Owner: "That sounds like a threat."
Dad (with Clint Eastwood overtones.): "That's not a threat,that's a fact."
Camp Owner: (dial tone....)

Scene 2 (Phone call to School District Administration.)

Dad: "I have a problem --not sure who to talk to. Our daughter...."
Dad: "Is it true the school district uses Horsebeat Hill?"
Special Education: "I don't know, how about calling Public Relations?"
Public Relations: "I don't know, how about calling a Middle School?"

Dad: "Hello...."
Laurie: "Well, if you file a complaint and if there is probable cause and if after the investigation (in about a year) a hearing officer decides that it was discrimination under the law, then he (the camp owner) will be instructed that he can't do it again -- now, on the form ignore the exceptions stated because they are not exceptions any more -- otherwise it's pretty straightforward."
Dad (ala Norton with Jackie Gleason): "You mean this probably won't help us for next weekend?"

Scene 5 (Phone call to Geese Scout's Office.)

Dad: "I have a problem; our daughter...."
Receptionist: "I'll refer you to Membership Relations." Membership Relations: "Hello."
Dad: "Our daughter...."
Membership Relations: "We use Mr. Murf a lot. We can't force him to do what he doesn't want to do; it's their business. Their hands are tied you know -- the problem with insurance."
Dad: "Their hands are tied? What does that mean?"
Membership Relations (Peevishly): "You know what that means."
Dad: "But this doesn't make sense...."
Membership Relations: "Maybe you'd better talk to the Director; she can explain it."
Director (Low, raspy voice with substantial authority): "Hello."
Dad: "Our daughter...."
Director: "Oh yes, we know about you...We use them a lot; they are very nice; very popular...good teachers."
Dad: "They told us that our daughter didn't belong on a horse, and they weren't going to do anything."
Director: "We can't force them to do what they don't want to do -- it's their business. Their hands are tied you know -- their problem with insurance."
Dad: "You mean it's O.K. for you to use camps who discriminate against one of your Scouts?"
Director: "Mr. Murf told my staff he would adapt the program."
Dad: "Yes, they offered to let Maria camp with the troop and give us a one-dollar refund for her not being able to join the others on the horses."
Director: ("Sigh....") Dad: "You mean it's O.K. for you to use camps who discriminate against one of your girls?"
Director: "Oh no, in that case we would stop using them." Dad (Modestly, with feigned surprise): "Well, maybe you should call and speak with the camp and explain to them how all of your business might need to go elsewhere."

ACT III

Scene I (Phone call from Camp Horsebeat Hill.)

Dad (Stern, but approachable): "Hello."
Camp Owner: (New voice, polite): "I apologize for the delay in getting back to you. I had to check with my fellow professionals. There are dangers, but we can have a certified instructor in the ring with her, and I think too much has been made about this trail ride thing. We can do some additional work with your daughter in the ring on a horse while the others are on the twenty-minute ride."
Dad (Regular guy tone): "Sounds reasonable. Thanks; ah..., did the Geese Scout's Office call?
Camp Owner (Mild surprise, quiet): "Yes, we did talk."

Perhaps Maria will grow up and become a horse-trainer like this young blind woman; perhaps she won't. Whether she does or does not, however, is not important. What is
important is that she now knows that it is a possibility.
Because her parents acted on her behalf as they did,
one more door of opportunity has been opened to her.

Editor's Note: The following letter and article
were passed on to me by Tom Balek of Kansas.
Tom and his wife Linda are part of the vanguard
of a new generation of parents of blind children.
They have read extensively about blindness and
have thought deeply about what they have learned.
As a result, both have become active in their local
and state affiliates of the National Federation of
the Blind, and Tom is the newly elected Secretary
of the Parents of Blind Children Division of the
National Federation of the Blind. They take the
Federation philosophy seriously and are sensitive
to the damage discrimination and stereotyping can
do to their son's self-image and emerging confidence. Furthermore, they can see patterns and
connections. When Tom sent me a copy of the letter
which described how his son was forced to sit at the
front of the bus for "safety" reasons, he also sent
along a brief note in which he likened the incident
to "...a kids version of the airlines scandal" (referring,
of course, to the erratic harassment and
second-class treatment blind people have suffered
at the hands of airline personnel in recent years-- all in the name of safety). He draws other connections,
too. Here is the story and his conclusions in
his own words.

(Some of the issues raised in the following
letter have not been resolved;
therefore, we have deleted some names.)

Berryton, KS
August 24,1990

Dear :

Thanks for the visit this morning. I wanted to
follow up with a letter because a) sometimes I
don't express myself very cogently in person, and
b) you may want to share it with others at your
upcoming team meeting. Communication between
us is vital to Jeffs success. I appreciate
your openness and your genuine concern for all
our kids.

It is extremely important at this age that Jeff
be around people with a positive attitude about
blindness. He knows he is blind, and he knows he
is different. What he needs to learn (and really
believe) is that in spite of this he can succeed.
This will only happen if we all foster in him a
sense of self-worth and especially independence.

This morning when he was instructed to sit in
the front seat of the bus, he asked, "Can't I sit
with my friends?" The response, audible to all,
was that it would not be safe. This made Jeff feel
"singled out" and inferior. The other kids pick up
on this, too. Outside, told Linda that this
would be the norm for the rest of Jeffs life; he
should always expect to receive special treatment
on buses, planes, etc., and that it is the driver's
responsibility to see that he is safe and gets where
he is going.

This is completely opposed to our philosophy.
We expect Jeff to go to college, get a job, and
function in society like thousands of other
capable, independent blind people. If he misses
a bus, he'd better learn some alternative techniques.

Please,
everybody, don't worry any more
about Jeffs safety than you do about anyone
else's. If the bus crashes he is no more entitled to
get out than the other kids. But he is also no less
entitled to a choice of seats than the other kids.
If you show the other kids how to open the safety
door, show Jeff too.

I understand there may be assigned seating
for all the kids. I agree with you that Jeff should
be assigned a seat where any other third grader
might sit, rather than in an obviously "special"
place. It is a long bus ride (45 minutes), and it
would be nice if he had some peers he could visit
with. Thanks for checking out the bus situation
on Monday.

There will be times when it is just not practical
for Jeff to do things the same way as everyone
else. We know, and he knows, that he needs
"alternative techniques" and using a sighted
guide is one of these. But it is important that the
differences between Jeff and his peers be minimized.
Our expectations for him should be no
different although some of his methods might be
different. Common sense and respect for individuals
should be our guide.

We can't "lead" Jeff around any more. He has
to do it on his own. Our task is not to get him to
lunch, but to teach him how to get to lunch on his
own. Believe me, if he gets hungry enough, he'll
figure it out. Please be alert to people (adults or
kids) who want to "shepherd" or "mother" him.
He can't reject this patronizing without seeming
rude, so he needs some help here. You have a
good understanding of these ideas and I believe
you share our philosophy and aspirations for Jeff.

We like--- very much as a person. He/She
is a dedicated professional and has much to offer
in the right circumstances. But at Jeffs impressionable
age we are afraid his/her attitudes about
blindness may do him harm. A mobility teacher
should perhaps be more appropriately titled an
"independence" teacher. ---- sometimes
seems oriented toward restraint and disability
rather than independence and ability. He/She
gets hung up on form, at the expense of function
and results. Blind people tell us that alternative
techniques are unique to the individual
everybody is a little different, and if a technique
works, it's not wrong. What's important is the
results. We've tried to talk with ---- about this,
but it seems to be pretty much an ingrained thing.
Perhaps he/she has worked with blind people
who were not very independent. We don't want
this result for Jeff.

It would be best if Jeff could receive mobility
instruction (especially cane travel) in school. But
that is not as important to us as instilling in him
confidence and ambition. We have the alternative
to obtain mobility instruction from some of
our blind friends, if necessary.

I look forward to visiting with you before our
IEP meeting so that we are well prepared....I
have some ideas I want to run by you. Thanks
again. You're doing a good job, and we appreciate
it. If we keep the lines of communication
open we might all get good at this parenting
and teaching business! Do keep us posted on any
developments.

Sincerely,
Tom Balek

Editor's Note: The following article by Tom
Balek was published in Capitol Newsflash, the
newsletter of the Capitol Chapter of the National
Federation of the Blind of Kansas:

For many people the civil rights movement of the
1960s is symbolized by a small black woman
named Rosa Parks, who refused to sit in the back
of a bus. Her small act of defiance set the tone for
those who followed and made clear to the world
just how foolish and wrong discrimination is.

Capitol Chapter member Jeff Balek, a third
grader at Berryton Elementary, has never heard
of Rosa Parks. But he knew something was wrong
when his school bus driver made him sit in the
front row while the other (sighted) students were
allowed to sit wherever they wanted.

When Jeff asked his driver why he couldn't sit in
the back with his friends for the forty-five minute
ride to and from school, she announced to him
and his peers, "It wouldn't be safe."

Jeffs parents and his principal took up the fight
with the misguided but steadfast driver. Local
chapter members, alerted to the situation, stood
ready to step in.

Meanwhile, every day for two weeks Jeff
repeated his wish to sit with his friends and was
rebuffed. Finally the driver relented.

Discrimination is just as wrong when applied to
the blind as it was, and is, for southern blacks.
Sadly, parents of blind children must still be
vigilant to protect their civil rights.